Bridgeton pioneer. (Bridgeton, N.J.) 1884-1919, 1887-10-20

helped to close them, and ordered the
crowd kept out.
Mossbrooks was sharply cross-ex-
amined by Mr.. Fithian.
Thomas Holcomb said he was at Sea
Breeze on Sunday, June Goth last, and
saw the bar open and liquor sold
Had paid money to him when he went
in to take his dinner; was too drunk
on the 4th of July to say whether
there was any rumpus there that day
or not; had seen Thomas Howard
give orders to the hostler, Andrew
Hicks.
Cross examined Couldn't say what
the order was he gave Hicks; couldn't
horse or not; got his dinner ticket at
the office, and Mr.. Howard took the
ticket when going into the dining
room; saw Mr. Howard's brother
taking tickets also; saw Samuel
Howard giving orders around there;
never saw Thomas Howard sell any
thing there in his life.
Friday Afternoon.
The examination of Thomas Hol-
comb was continued in the Thomas
Howard case, on the re-assembling of
Court in the afternoon of Friday. He
said he had seen minors-boys under
21 years of age-drinking at the bar
while he was employed there. He was
hired by Thomas Howard on July
4th.
John Roach was at Sea Breeze
again, but he hardly knew anything,
could positively say it was Sunday
when he was there.
Daniel Lore was sworn, and said he
paid money into the hands Of Thomas
Howard for accommodations On
night for self, man and team.
| John Buck was also sworn and Daniel
Welden to proc that Thomas How
ard was the Ie-,i proprietor Of the
place.
The defence was what was 10 have
been suspected; that the defendant,
Thomas Howard, was not the proprie-
tor of Sea Breeze, but that he had sold
out all his right, title and interest in
the place to his brother Samuel How
ard, about the middle OF May last.
The defence was opened by Mr.. A. R.
Fithian.
Thomas Howard was put upon the
stand and detailed how he had sold
out to his brother and had given up
the lease and his brother had taken it,
A lease between the Upper Delaware
Transportation Co. and Samuel How
ard was exhibited, purporting to be
for the Sea Breeze property, and lot
of bills to Samuel Howard, were offered
in evidence to show that the manage
ment of the place was in Samuel How
ard and not in Thomas Howard. The
bills were admitted.
Samuel Howard, the witness said,
was in Philadelphia, VIM. Smedley
was in Philadelphia tending Il bar;
Samuel Howard, Jr., he said, was out
of the country.
A number OF witnesses Were exam
ined to prove that Samuel and not
Thomas Howard, was the real proprie-
tor of the place, and did the hiring,
buying, and all the management of the
place.
Just before Court adjourned the
committee appointed TO drafI resolu,
tions of respect to the memory of the
late Judge Elias P. Doughty reported,
through its chairman John s. Mitchell,
Esq, the resolutions adopted by the
bar. After u few eloquent predatory
remarks, Mr.. Mitchell read the resoiu-
tions as follows:-
WHEREAS, Since the last session OF
this Court Elias p Doughty, for
many years Judge of the Court OF
Common Pleas, of this county, has
departed this life,
ResoLrea, That the Court has re-
ceived with profound sorrow the intel
ligeuce Of his death, and do hereby
bear witness 70 his integrity and use
fulness in the discharge of his judicial
duties.
Res0lrcd, That these resolutions be
entered in the minutes OF this Courc
that the respect which we entertain for
his memory may be preserved in an
endearlng manner.
JOHN s. MITCHELL,
CHAs. e. SHEPPARD.
HENRY S. ALVOID,
Committee of the Bar.
Dated Oct. IA, 1887.
Judge Reed upon the reception of
the resolutions, made some very feel
ing remarks, paying Il high tri0aEe 70
the departed Judge, and ordered that
the resolutions be spread upon the
minutes of the Court, and u certified
copy of theu be sent to the family OF
the late Judge Doughty. Court then
adjourned until $50 o'clock Saturday
morning
Saturday Morning.
The Court House bell called up
ClerIS Go1frav thiS rnoruino sf near